Rodriquez v. Calace et al

Filing 113

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 112 Defendant's ORAL MOTION to Dismiss made during the August 9, 2012 discovery conference by Bernavin Armstrong, Bridgeport Housing Authority, Nicholas A. Calace. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 9/25/12. (Esposito, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
:
LORI RODRIGUEZ
:
:
:
v.
:
:
NICHOLAS CALACE,
:
BERNAVIN ARMSTRONG and
:
BRIDGEPORT HOUSING AUTHORITY, :
:
:

CIV. NO. 3:07CV200 (WWE)

RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS/SANCTIONS
Lori Rodriguez brings this employment discrimination law
suit against her employer, the Bridgeport Housing Authority
(“BHA”); its Executive Director, Nicholas Calace, and her direct
supervisor, Bernavin Armstrong.
On August 9, 2012, a status conference was held to address
defendants’ oral motion to dismiss and for sanctions. [Doc.
#112].
Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for
plaintiff’s failure to comply with defendants’ discovery
requests and this court’s discovery orders. The defendants
further argue that plaintiff’s most recent supplemental
disclosures expand the scope of plaintiff’s claims, and that
defendants have been severely prejudiced by the late disclosure
and nondisclosure of medical information and the identity of
witnesses.
After careful consideration, the Court declines to dismiss
the complaint. Instead, to remedy the prejudice to defendants,

the Court will limit the scope of plaintiff’s claims to the
following issues:


Was the plaintiff sexually harassed at work?



If so, did the sexual harassment cause her to suffer a
stroke/conversion event on January 7, 2009?
The Court will preclude plaintiff from arguing for or

recovering emotional distress damages arising from either the
alleged sexual harassment or the January 7, 2009 medical
incident.
Defendants’ Letter dated August 29, 2012
On August 9, plaintiff was ordered to produce all
outstanding medical/pharmacy records to defendants by 9:00AM by
Monday, August 13, 2012. [Defs. Let. Dated 8/9/12 at 4].

On

August 29, 2012, defendants notified the Court that the parties
exchanged some documents. However, defendants identified seven
outstanding production requests that remain outstanding and
sought leave to file a motion requesting additional sanctions,
including dismissal of the case.

Defendants’ Motion for Leave

to File a formal motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, defendant’s oral Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint and for Sanctions [Doc. #112] is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part, consistent with this ruling and order.
Plaintiff is precluded from arguing for or recovering emotional
distress damages arising from either the alleged sexual
harassment or the January 7, 2009 medical incident.

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a formal motion to
dismiss is GRANTED.

Defendants will file their motion within

twenty-one days.
This is not a recommended ruling.

This is a discovery

ruling and order which is reviewable pursuant to the "clearly
erroneous" statutory standard of review.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(e) and 72(a); and Rule 2 of
the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges.

As such,

it is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by the
district judge upon motion timely made.

SO ORDERED at Bridgeport this 25th day of September 2012.

________/s/___________________
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE